Learning to Classify Documents According to Formal and Informal Style
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses an important issue in computational linguistics: classifying texts as formal or informal style. Our work describes a genre-independent methodology for building classifiers for formal and informal texts. We used machine learning techniques to do the automatic classification, and performed the classification experiments at both the document level and the sentence level. First, we studied the main characteristics of each style, in order to train a system that can distinguish between them. We then built two datasets: the first dataset represents general-domain documents of formal and informal style, and the second represents medical texts. We tested on the second dataset at the document level, to determine if our model is sufficiently general, and that it works on any type of text. The datasets are built by collecting documents for both styles from different sources. After collecting the data, we extracted features from each text. The features that we designed represent the main characteristics of both styles. Finally, we tested several classification algorithms, namely Decision Trees, Naïve Bayes, and Support Vector Machines, in order to choose the classifier that generates the best classification results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it